The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

1251. Comment #63088 by Quetzalcoatl on August 13, 2007 at 4:56 am

Thanks to Lee also! In my trawlings, I found that a lot of the other versions use "before" in the place of "till" or "until", which puts a whole different spin on things! Although I'm sure Mark would probably call that bad translation.

An alternative interpretation could easily be that after the Son of God returns, the disciples taste of "death" in the form of the end of their MORTAL existence and the start of a new IMMORTAL life in Heaven/God's Kingdom on Earth/etc. Such a transition could easily be called "death". That interpretation certainly seems to suggest that Jesus was due to return before the disciples died. (Perhaps he's still waiting for his bus!)

Point being that it's easy to read a certain passage of text in different ways. Will look into the context. More later, perhaps.

PS- Lee, as an accountant I don't have much use for a Bible in my day-to-day routine!

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1252. Comment #63090 by LeeC on August 13, 2007 at 5:11 am

Hi Q

Lee, as an accountant I don't have much use for a Bible in my day-to-day routine

I could think of a use for it!!!

Erm… the book of Numbers perhaps may be handy?

On that… I have to go.

See ya

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1253. Comment #63091 by Quetzalcoatl on August 13, 2007 at 5:12 am

Erm… the book of Numbers perhaps may be handy?

That is a terrible joke. Hang your head in shame, Lee.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1254. Comment #63115 by Mark Taunton on August 13, 2007 at 6:27 am

Hi Quetz:

In my trawlings, I found that a lot of the other versions use "before" in the place of "till" or "until", which puts a whole different spin on things! Although I'm sure Mark would probably call that bad translation.

Not at all. The sense that comes out by considering scriptural usage of the underlying Greek term here (eos an) translated "until" by the KJV, or "before" by the NIV (thanks for the citation, Lee - saved me effort), is clearly about the ordering in time of two events. The events Jesus speaks of in this verse are (a) some of his hearers "see(ing) the son of man coming in his kingdom", and (b) the deaths of those particular hearers - in that order.

Therefore Jesus' statement here cannot mean what Lee's original question suggests. When Jesus returns, he will bring already-dead faithful disciples back to life, and change the nature of both those and still-living ones, granting them all eternal life (1 Cor 15:51). At that future time, they certainly won't be doing any dying, temporary (a "tasting") or permanent, but will be alive again to witness the actual fulfilment of the prayer: "thy kingdom come".

The only conclusion to be reached - on the basis of logic, not "feelings"! - is that Jesus in Mt16:28 was not speaking of his actual return, but of the vision of how he will appear in glory when he comes in his kingdom, that those three disciples saw only a few days later, as Matthew immediately goes on to describe. Additionally, one of them, John, was given further visions of that future state of things, as recorded in the book of Revelation.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

1255. Comment #63119 by Mark Taunton on August 13, 2007 at 6:40 am

Billy,

Yes it is an owl butterfly. This astonishing creature - I use the word advisedly - shows not just two but three distinct forms of eye: insect, bird and reptilian. You can just about make all three out in the painfully low-res representation here. Of course, only one form sees, but the other two are still functional in a different way - because they were designed to be, as I believe. "He that formed the eye, shall he not see?".

The wonderful finishing touch, that you cannot see in this picture (taken by `my father, incidentally) is that the top surface of the wings, in total contrast with the extraordinarily detailed pictures beneath, is a stunning iridescent sky-blue.

Quetz: let's see you make one of those!

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

1256. Comment #63124 by BillySands on August 13, 2007 at 7:11 am

Hi Mark,
Never knew about the smaller eyespots. I may have misunderstood you, but none of them are functional eyes

Quetz: let's see you make one of those!

Don't put Quetz to the test :-)
Actually, I could Really make one of them that glows in the dark. There is a nice jellyfish gene for a protein called green fluorescent protein http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_fluorescent_protein There are also other colours, like red and yellow fluorescent proteins too. If you know enough about tissue specific gene regulation in butterflies, you could make different bits glow different colours

Other Comments by BillySands

1257. Comment #63126 by Flagellant on August 13, 2007 at 7:19 am

We'll have to take it on trust that Quetz can do these things. You see, it's all a matter of faith and belief.

(PS Quetz, does this pardon my sin of occsionally being an unbelieving, schismatic backslider?)

Other Comments by Flagellant

1258. Comment #63127 by Quetzalcoatl on August 13, 2007 at 7:19 am

Billy-

I think he means that the only functional set is the insect set ie the butterfly's actual eyes.

Mark-

I could quite easily, but I've entrusted the creation of new creatures to Billy. He's currently working on human-crab hybrids. Much smarter, and have opposable thumbs/pincers. Helps with the tool use.

Flagellant-

You're fine. CONSISTENT unbelief is what will earn you my wrath, or mild irritation, depending on what mood I'm in.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1259. Comment #63130 by BillySands on August 13, 2007 at 7:37 am

I think he means that the only functional set is the insect set ie the butterfly's actual eyes.

I see (was that as bad a Lee's effort?)

Actually, it just occurred to me, the function of the eyespot if for predator avoidance. Mark, what is your view on Death and the fall? Why was the butterfly "created" this way if there was no predation before the fall?

Other Comments by BillySands

1260. Comment #63136 by J.C. Samuelson on August 13, 2007 at 8:06 am

Mark,

Very sorry to hear about your mum. The strength of my relationship with my mother being what it is, I dread the day she passes. My condolences to you and your family.

As for your trip to Israel, I do hope it's interesting but uneventful, if you take my meaning. Presuming it will be, I might however suggest giving at least a moment's thought to the somewhat obvious fact that the troubles there ultimately revolve around religious differences, for which Christianity shares a measure of responsibility. It is one of those places in which the foolishness of religious dogma has been persistently deadly.

I agree that thanks must go to Lee for giving a summary of the questions unanswered. Kudos to you, my friend. :)

Like with Billy and Lee, it goes without saying that I disagree with your assessment of the passages in question. There are a couple reasons for this, but don't worry I'll be brief (try to contain your shock, guys :))

First, as Billy & Lee point out it seems apparent that Matthew has Jesus discussing how he will come into his kingdom before all of them die. As for the word "see," it is necessary (and possible) to equivocate by saying that this refers to the alleged vision in Ch. 17, rather than a somewhat more obvious and intuitive interpretation.

The simple fact that so-called holy men are depicted as speaking in vague terms allows us to impose whatever interpretation we find most pleasing on their words. And we do. Christians do not all agree on which is the proper interpretation either, with each arguing that the others have done so incorrectly. This is the same problem we've discussed before, and still begs the question as to why a perfect author could not be more explicit.

Second, you've cited Romans, which preceeds the Gospel of Matthew by as much as 20 years according to the scholarly consensus. Thus, it should not be surprising to find links between them, since the Jesus legend began its literary development with Paul. Such citations are of limited use, since it involves using the same source book being questioned to validate itself. Again, this requires faith in the text first. Therefore, this has all the appearance of logic, but is actually circular.

So that's a pfennig or two of my thoughts. Have a great trip, and to all may today and every day bring you closer to being who and where you want to be! :)

P.S. Lee, that joke was just awful. ;oP

Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson

1261. Comment #63242 by BillySands on August 13, 2007 at 4:03 pm

Concerning the timing of Jesus' return, Matt 24 gives some insight.
Important verses are 33-34 "33Even so, when you [the disciples]see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. 34I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened .

I suspect this failure to return is what lead "Peter" to write
"3First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." (2 peter 3:3-9)

The author needs to explain why Jesus has not returned yet. It is reasonable to assume that the audience were expecting it (justifiably). The excuse says that God has changed his mind That seems unlikely given that his plan is perfect etc. By delaying, I would think many more people would be born than would be condemned. This both raises the possibility of pre-destiny and denies it at the same time - it seems somewhat inconsistent.
I also have a problem with the idea that we apparently deliberately forget the flood. This is a good verse to use on those who say the biblical flood/6 day creation is not meant to be literal - I presume mark may back me up here :-)

Other Comments by BillySands

1262. Comment #63357 by LeeC on August 14, 2007 at 2:48 am

Quetzalcoatl wrote:-

Lee, as an accountant I don't have much use for a Bible in my day-to-day routine!

and for me that meant only one response was possible..

I could think of a use for it!!! The book of Numbers perhaps may be handy?

Looks like the early reviews are in...

JC wrote:-

that joke was just awful

Quetzalcoatl wrote:-

That is a terrible joke.

Followed with…

Hang your head in shame, Lee.

and now I seem to have a "gained" a reputation
As Billy wrote:-

was that as bad as Lee's effort?

I will have to stand by my critics - it doesn't look like the life on the comedy road will be a fruitful one for me.

As least JC wrote some encouraging words:-

… to all may today and every day bring you closer to being who and where you want to be!

I wanted to be comedian, but with more critics born every minute I will retire now from the stage - oh well... I will just keep typing code in a dark windowless room with just the glow of the LCD screen for light and warmth…

No more jokes from me… I will have to stick to sarcasm, it may be low, but it is clear it is all that I have.

Maybe I should learn to play the guitar – then I could be a Rockstar or something, but with my musical skills I have more chance being a Roadie – I can move heavy things from one place to another.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1263. Comment #63358 by LeeC on August 14, 2007 at 2:52 am

Hi JC

I agree that thanks must go to Lee for giving a summary of the questions unanswered

Cheers (or how they say down here - "No Worries" - Very soon they will be removing all knowledge of history and culture from my brain so I can be a "True Blue Aussie" - I will also be learning the "philosophers' sketch"for good measure.)

I also keep remembering more topics of discussion that are still "open" - your single paragraph summarises nicely one of these. (Which is great, since it means I do not have to write another summary post – hooray, we can just link to this.)

The simple fact that so-called holy men are depicted as speaking in vague terms allows us to impose whatever interpretation we find most pleasing on their words. And we do. Christians do not all agree on which is the proper interpretation either, with each arguing that the others have done so incorrectly. This is the same problem we've discussed before, and still begs the question as to why a perfect author could not be more explicit.

I would also add to this that before any passage can be said to be prophecy, evidence of its authorship for when it was written and last modified, has to be proven first. If not, it is just story telling.

Some passages maybe more an exercise in "historical writing" to "read like" prophecy – "meaningless" on the prophecy debate (and do not make the bible "look-good" in my opinion).

I think the passage we are discussing from Matthew is an example of "true" prophecy - shame it is not true (actually, no - if it was true, the "end of the world" would have already happened and I would not be here discussing it as I would never have been born)

Cheers

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1264. Comment #63366 by BillySands on August 14, 2007 at 3:09 am

Lee,
The Bruce sketch has redeemed you.
Here is one of my favorite pieces of Aussie comedy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLz5KgBTqPY&mode=related&search=



Other Comments by BillySands

1265. Comment #63369 by BillySands on August 14, 2007 at 3:17 am

And here is the philosophers song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_WRFJwGsbY

Other Comments by BillySands

1266. Comment #63371 by LeeC on August 14, 2007 at 3:21 am

OK, a long reply…

I will take onboard Mark's valid point against me that I read passages out of context sometimes. (However this will always be the case until I read the book from cover to cover – and then I probably read it on the wrong day or something)

So I will expand a little before and after the originally quoted verse - Matthew 16:28.

All from quotes from the King James Bible, in God's own English (Sorry Billy, Scottish doesn't sound right here – but I know James was a Scottish king so I hope you forgive me)

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Matthew 16:18-19

So Jesus at this point is "handing over" control to Peter – Jesus clearly does not state who should take control "after Peter" because there will be no need – Peter will not "taste death" before Jesus returns to "take up" his kingdom. Although, Jesus hasn't said when he will hand the "keys" over, but he is clear Peter's actions on earth will be important – so I am still a little unsure on this part.

From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Matthew 16:21

"Prophesying" Jesus' death and "resurrection" - if you believe that sort of thing. (Lets not go there)

Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. Matthew 16:22-23

Nice – the person Jesus has just handed over control and the given "keys of the kingdom of heaven" is seen very quickly by Jesus as "Satan". Seems a bit strange to me – maybe I should think about this more?

So onto the "big build-up"
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Matthew 16:24-27

All good Christian stuff right? – rally the troops and all that.

After this of course comes the passage I am questioning, and trying to understand.

The "build-up" so far seems to be Jesus handing over control to Peter, to look after the "matters" of the church on Earth – until his Jesus' return I assume. It does not mention who should take over control from Peter. Which I now think puts the following passage into context?

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Matthew 16:28

No one is "taking over" from Peter – Peter will not "taste death" before (till/until) the crowd present "see the Son of man coming in his kingdom".

Seems pretty clear to me?

I guess now it all comes down what is meant by "see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom"? – I cannot get away from that. (Help anyone?)

So does this means "us" i.e. when "man", "all of us" comes into "His"(God's?) kingdom? - I think so.

It is not talking about Jesus is it? Jesus is the "Son of God"…
Actually, on second reading of this passage has to be talking about Jesus. Since in the verse Matthew 17: 9 Jesus refers to himself as "Son of man" (Quoted later). Weird, I did not know Jesus was a son of man…. Can someone explain this to me?

Anyway, where was I, oh yeah…

so the people in present will not "taste death" (die) until they see man/Jesus? "coming in"/entering the Kingdom of God… seems a pretty BIG prophecy this one.
(And as Billy pointed out in post 1415 – at the battle of Agincourt – many people of the time of the bible were a little upset that the end of the world hasn't come yet, and they were not all in the Kingdom of heaven as promised – Thanks for that Billy, I think it reinforces my point on this verse)

Anyway, let's see if it is the "vision" that immediately follows this passage helps Mark's response?

And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him. Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. Matthew 17:1-4

No mention of anyone "tasting death"… so no reason to believe the prophecy has been fulfilled with this passage. No clues here that Matthew 16:28 has been fulfilled at all. It doesn't even mention the "the Son of man coming in his kingdom" It is not described at all.

But let's just read on a little bit more to be sure…

While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid. Matthew 17:5-6

I guess we have to assume the "well pleased" voice behind the cloud was God?

So this is not the "son of man coming into his Kingdom", merely "evidence" (if you are a believer) that Jesus is the Son of God. That is all – and if a cloud were to tell me that someone was a son of god, I would believe the cloud right?

So this is the "first identification" of Jesus as the son of god (right? – not the son of man?) – not what was describe in the verse, Matthew 16:28, as it mentions NOTHING about what has just been described, no death, no "kingdom of heaven" – no man/Jesus entering the kingdom of heaven… it is lacking a lot of "evidence" really as "fulfilment" to a prophecy.

Matthew is describing a "historical event" remember, so if he wanted to "prove" his earlier prophecy surely Matthew would have highlighted people "tasting death" and write a claim that what was seen was "the kingdom of heaven" and "someone" entering it and stuff.

I stand by what I have said – nothing here has changed my mind.

And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise, and be not afraid. And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus only. And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead. Matthew 17:7-9

This last bit puts the nail in the coffin so to speak – it would have been a great place to add "Tell the vision of the Son of man coming in his kingdom to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

The absence of such an entry makes me to "believe" this is talking about something completely different.

And so here I rest my case, and present my evidence to the court!

Since I am still new on this bible reading "lark", I welcome input from you all – have I "missed the point" or "misunderstood" the passage (I think I have, I am really confused about it to tell you the truth). And since Mark might not being commenting anytime soon – off on his holiday instead. - I think my argument rests and falls on the understanding of "Son of man coming in his kingdom" and what this actually means.

Mark of course already thinks I am wrong, but it seems pretty clear to me, whatever the verse Matthew 16:28 is talking about, it is NOT describing the passage that followed it. It also seems "clear" to be describing the "Son of man coming in his kingdom" which I am taking to be the after the "End of days" bit.

It all interesting stuff though.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1267. Comment #63374 by LeeC on August 14, 2007 at 3:26 am

Thanks Billy,

I'll drink to that...

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1268. Comment #63377 by Philip1978 on August 14, 2007 at 3:30 am

Mark,

I also offer my deepest sympathies over the loss of your mother, I hope you will be ok.

The one major problem I have with prophesying anything is that absolutely ANYBODY could pick it up in the time frame predicted and do exactly what it asks.
The prophesies in the Bible are so vague and incomplete, look at how that prophesy about the "Nazarine" gets out of hand. This actually refers to Samson and not Jesus but Matthew still manages to twist it to make it look like true prophesy and that Jesus grew up there despite there being evidence to the contrary. Since there is no evidence to prove Jesus grew up in Nazareth other than the Bible could it possibly be the prophesy is wrong? Or is Matthew not talking about the messiah and he is a very naughty boy!

take care,

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

1269. Comment #63426 by Mark Taunton on August 14, 2007 at 5:42 am

Thanks to all for condolences.

Thanks to Lee for taking the time to look at the context of Matthew 16:28. Lee, keep working on it: understanding the Bible is a matter of repeated looking and thinking, including being willing to leave behind one's previous view on some point, on seeing a new detail that shows it cannot have been quite right. You do seem to jump to certain conclusions rather readily (because of your general attitude that doubts the validity of the Bible), and sometimes without obvious reason from the context. Nontheless you are doing what anyone who wants to be clear as to the truth (or falsehood) of the Bible is obliged to do: read the text and think about it. I commend you, quite genuinely, for doing that (and reporting back here).

Your questions about Jesus as "son of God" or "son of man" can be answered by looking at the (many!) occurrences of those phrases elsewhere in the Bible. One early example for "son of man" is Psalm 8:4, quoted in Hebrews 2, and said there to refer to Jesus; note that at 2:9 Jesus is said to himself "taste of death" (that is by dying, but being dead only for a finite time). Daniel 7:13 uses the phrase "one like the son of man"; this verse links specifically to Mt 17:5 through the word "cloud" which surrounded both Jesus and the disciples. Note that the phrase "son of man" is used several times of prophets, such as Daniel and (especially) Ezekiel - it is not uniquely applied to Jesus.

The New Testament repeatedly speaks of Jesus as the son of God. The reason can be seen from Luke 1:35 and context, which shows how Jesus was born of a human mother, but had no human father, because God was his father. He applies the phrase to himself in John 10:36. As with "son of man", the term "son of God", though centrally a description of Jesus - e.g. Mark 1:1 - is also applied in plural form to believers, e.g. John 1:12, Romans 8;14, Philippians 2:15.

I have no more time now. I hope to return to this debate in September. Take care...

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

1270. Comment #63490 by J.C. Samuelson on August 14, 2007 at 1:30 pm

Lee,

I would also add to this that before any passage can be said to be prophecy, evidence of its authorship for when it was written and last modified, has to be proven first. If not, it is just story telling.

Absolutely. I couldn't have said it better myself. The biggest problem for Christians who argue in favor of divine authorship is that there is no evidence of any divine author. It is as many of us have said repeatedly: Bible <===> God.

In fact, this is what lies at the root of the prophecy debate.

Mark,

It's perhaps a bit ironic that you and I would both make the same recommendation yet expect different results from Bible study. That is, we both recommend reading the text and thinking about it. The difference seems to be only in what each of us would permit as valid evidence in support of the text.

At the risk of seeming repetitive (as if that wasn't already well-established), again I'd like to point out the circular reasoning involved in your brief analysis. According to you, the Bible validates itself. This is precisely the weakness that Lee hinted at in the above quote. Surely it goes without saying that you would reject similar arguments in favor of scriptures from other faiths?

Well, you are off until September, so I guess we'll have to wait for more answers. Thank you for taking the time to share a few more thoughts before leaving. I wish you the best on your trip.

Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson

1271. Comment #63589 by BillySands on August 15, 2007 at 2:38 am

Have a safe trip Mark

Other Comments by BillySands

1272. Comment #63883 by LeeC on August 16, 2007 at 2:02 pm

Hi JC,

I will respond to Mark in later, since he is on his holiday now – I am sure this will wait. I will use your response as a "springboard" for a rant. (Hope you do not mind)

The biggest problem for Christians who argue in favour of divine authorship is that there is no evidence of any divine author. It is as many of us have said repeatedly: Bible <===> God.

In fact, this is what lays at the root of the prophecy debate.

Yep… we keep repeating it – but it always seems to get missed somewhere. I guess because the "divine authorship" cannot be questioned? A theist will always read the bible "knowing" god wrote it, and therefore cannot really question. An "atheist" does not know if God wrote it, or just man on his own – he is free to look at the evidence and take it to whatever conclusions it leads – I would be happy if it led me to God… if this was the truth, but I've not seen good evidence anywhere in the bible.

So using the bible as evidence for God is fine with me. How worthwhile this is, being "science trained", depends on how well the bible stands up to the "test".

This maybe the problem, some theist's doesn't seem to understand that is worthless, meaningless, and unreliable and erm, not very good – if you cannot prove the bible is a worthwhile, meaningful, reliable and is good source of evidence. The bible is certainly a good source of "words", but it is without foundations – Shakespeare is a great source of "words" so what is the difference? The bible requires evidence for its validity; evidence that it has been proven correct many times before, and so could be used with "confidence" on other matters. Mark understands this, and hence the debates on prophecy. Shame the evidence offered is so vague as you have mentioned, and things that can be tested in the bible have failed upon examination.

There are other events mentioned in the bible that are not so vague, so we could test these first. Test for other evidence that should have been observed by others (outside the bible) if the bible was true. (e.g. Has anyone read, other than the bible, of earthquakes and dead saints raising at the time of the "so called" resurrection? (in Matthew 27: 51-54) Surely someone would have noticed this and wrote it down – I questioned this in "another" thread if anyone is interested, its a long one and no answers are given of course from the theist)

On this thread (which for me started here – then I do go on a bit as I usually do) a theist asked me for what I meant by evidence (for a god). The theist (we shall call him Ash) used the bible as his single source of evidence for god and focused in particular on the "eye witness" accounts mentioned in the bible of Jesus and his miracles. (We have not gone down the prophecy route yet, if so I will re-direct him here, no point in repeating myself more than I have to)

When I questioned the validity of the statements in the bible, and compared them with modern writings and beliefs on alien landings and adductions, Ash (the theist) could not see or understand the comparison. (Maybe just my poor argument skills at work again?) It is a slow moving debate and I assume of some point Ash will just wander off and not return – happens a lot with some theists. I'm glad Mark sticks around though and puts up with us all)

So my point is that it should be possible to verify many of the observations/statements made in the bible with other written sources at the time. If many of the statements turn out true – then GREAT, we can use the bible with a little confidence. If however most turn out false, or have not been verified with other source when "common sense" say that they should have (the absence of evidence can condemn the bible as well) – then the whole bible should be questioned (and rejected as a source of evidence.)

The problem is that even though the list of possible opportunities God has to provide evidence for his existence is almost limitless – we observe nothing that cannot be explained rather well by science, (or will probably turn out are not that surprising once we learn more of physics and biology). The "miracle" factor is very possible for God, events that break currently held "beliefs" in science, but none are seen (Why is that?).

It must be stressed here that there is a huge difference in pointing out "Look your science cannot explain this" and point to the first instance of life, or consciousness, what came before the Big Bang (whatever). These are all "unknowns" to science today that we freely admit to (some we may answer, some we may never answer with science - one in particular). However, has a theist or any religion EVER pointed to an observation/event (observed under scientific conditions) that science "knows" how it works or should behave and yet - by some "miracle" of god - it breaks the laws of physics? No never… and hey, James Randi has $1,000,000 for anyone who can - but no church or person has come and claimed the prize - this is rather telling evidence for me.

I've talked enough… I do go on a bit.

Cheers

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1273. Comment #63885 by LeeC on August 16, 2007 at 2:05 pm

JC

Good to see you BTW - you look so much younger now.

I am too ashamed to show my real face.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1274. Comment #64424 by LeeC on August 20, 2007 at 3:28 am

Hi Mark,

Thanks to Lee for taking the time to look at the context of Matthew 16:28.

A pleasure – I actually enjoyed it... I always like to question the question - even if it was me who raised the question (???)

I'll start talking to myself next... (but the little voices in my head tell me I shouldn't.)

understanding the Bible is a matter of repeated looking and thinking, including being willing to leave behind one's previous view on some point, on seeing a new detail that shows it cannot have been quite right.

I'll agree to this... (More than you probably thought I would when you first typed it maybe?)

Substitute the phrase "the Bible" with "life" or "the universe" or "anything" and you have my philosophy on life.

On the subject matter of the bible though, there is a lot in the bible that "cannot be quite right"... this long thread highlights a lot of those issues.

Please take my next comment as it is meant, in a kind way, I think you should try and "practice what you preach" (Sorry, it still sounds rude).

Please re-read the bible (focus on the chapters and verses that have been discussed in the past on this thread), but try and do it a little differently this time. Do not (as you have in the past) start with the assumption "God exists" and then read the bible.
Read the bible next time with only the known facts, and without making unproven assumptions - think - "this book was written by man over 2,000 years ago who believed in god, they believed they were right, and want to make me believe their ideas too, but I will not believe there is a god until proven otherwise" - once you have your mind "set" to this way of thinking, then read the passages...

If the bible is the true word of god, it will prove itself. If the bible was written by man and man alone 2,000 years ago - it might just might start showing a few illogical holes. Maybe some things quoted in the bible should be backed up by evidence outside the bible, before we start believing them blindly.

Wouldn't it be a good idea to read it this way, could you honestly do that?

If you read the bible "knowing" it was written by God and do not question everything you read, then you are in danger of only proving to yourself what you already "knew".

I could (and have) read the bible with the assumption "God exists" (it is easy to do) but then I still find questions - why did God do things this way, why didn't God do this - if this really happened should I see evidence outside the bible?

As you said, one should be "willing to leave behind one's previous view on some point"

You do seem to jump to certain conclusions rather readily (because of your general attitude that doubts the validity of the Bible)

I jump to conclusions fast? Maybe - this could be debated, but I will change them faster once presented evidence that I am wrong. Or if no evidence is presented, I will NOT jump to conclusions of the "positive", that is, I will NOT jump to conclusions there IS a god. Quite the reverse - this isn't really "jumping to conclusions", it's not "jumping" to anything really.

My "general attitude" is to doubt (and question), why is that so wrong? (it worked for Thomas remember? I keep reminding myself of that)

I try and follow the "scientific method" for my "belief system" (as you probably know). The reason for this is that the mind, the eye and "common sense" can all be tricked and fooled. Our prejudices in wanting to prove what we believe true can taint our observations.

and sometimes without obvious reason from the context

Not sure what you mean by this... I admitted that I have sometimes read passages "out of context", but I only question what I read - I doubt the text, play "devil's advocate" (if you like) - "truth will prevail" and all that.

Nontheless you are doing what anyone who wants to be clear as to the truth (or falsehood) of the Bible is obliged to do: read the text and think about it. I commend you, quite genuinely, for doing that (and reporting back here).

Thank you.

I report back here, because I want to check that I am right (or wrong) - if I only think about this alone then of course I will agree with myself.

If I have made a mistake in my logic (or reasoning) I would like to know.

If I do meet St Peter at the Pearly gates and was asked "So why didn't you believe and follow God", I want to be able to say that I tried looking, but like Bertrand Russell "Not enough evidence" would be my reply (if I have to of course)

Your questions about Jesus as "son of God" or "son of man" can be answered by looking at the (many!) occurrences of those phrases elsewhere in the Bible....
... The New Testament repeatedly speaks of Jesus as the son of God. The reason can be seen from Luke 1:35 and context, which shows how Jesus was born of a human mother, but had no human father, because God was his father.

Can it?
(Thanks for the bible references BTW, I will read them shortly)

OK - tell me where I go wrong with my next piece of thinking.

According to the bible...

Jesus was "born to Mary" - So Jesus could be described as "son of woman" - possibly.

Jesus' dad was God (or God was Jesus, or Jesus was God - I get confused here) - anyway, so on this basis Jesus could be described as "Son of God" - I think.

Jesus did not have a "human" father (Joseph says it was nothing to do with him but very kindly does not ask for Mary to be stoned to death for having a child out of wed-lock - that was lucky, it would ruin the Christmas Nativity story) - so we have the "virgin birth" and all that - so Jesus cannot be described as "son of man". No "man" was involved at all – only god and a woman.

Conclusion?

Jesus should not be described as "son of man" - Jesus claims he was "son of god", born of "virgin birth" – no human father (actually – does Jesus ever make such a claim about his virgin birth?)
I guess this is really not that important, probably similar to the phrase "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" - this doesn't make sense either. It needs the important "a".All lost in translation somewhere and all that?

Or do you think "son of man" be translated as son of mankind?

Anyway, thanks again.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1275. Comment #64425 by LeeC on August 20, 2007 at 3:30 am

Warning… another rant coming…

A few questions came to me while typing the previous post - stupid I know, slow on the up take and all that but remember I was not raised religiously and my biology is rubbish.

My questioning? – (All I believe are valid questions whether you believe in God or not.)

Did Jesus look like his mum (Mary)? I mean, most babies have half the genes of their father and mother right? Or was Mary just "carrying" Jesus, (a "surrogate mum" for god? – why didn't the bible say this?) and so Jesus' genes would be 100% from God.
WOW - you know what, I would have thought some Jesus DNA would be really, really useful evidence in proving Jesus was the Son of God (Billy, would this sway you?) - you would think that God would leave some Jesus DNA knocking around as evidence wouldn't you - anyway, sorry – I will wash my mouth out - Evidence? What was I thinking? That is what faith is for.

Anyway, along these same lines, why did God need Mary at all? I mean, couldn't God just pick up some mud or something and create Jesus (himself) in adult form? Why wait 30 years or so. "BANG" - and here's Jesus? Why did God want to experience 30 years of life on Earth? If God wanted to experience 30 years of human life, why isn't the reasoning explained in the bible? Did God learn anything from his experience of living as a man for 30 years?

Why did God need Jesus at all? I mean, Jesus is to die for our sins right? What sins were these? Eating a fruit from a tree God placed in a garden and told Adam and Eve not to eat it... I mean, it was not the biggest sin in the world was it? The result of the "sin" gave Adam and Eve knowledge, instead of ignorance didn't it? - Is that such a bad thing? Even if it was a really evil deed (God can be fussy), couldn't God just forgive us – just like that? Instead of coming down to Earth as a baby (which resulted in King Herod killing all babies under 2 years of age - nice, loving God? He knew this would happen, but did it anyway – the price to forgive the fruit eater eh?) God having to wait 30 years growing (a bit of a delay then) and then arrange it so God's "former" chosen people (the Jews) get the blame for executing Jesus (God) in a rather brutal and painful way? What actually was the point in all that? One click of the magic fingers and all could have been forgiven… and we could all be in heaven now too – why do we have to wait another 2,000 years? (All God's will and all that – don't see why I should worship Him though if this is all true?)

Also, why is it the Jews get the blame when it was the Romans who actually did the deed of killing Jesus (God) - the Romans get away "blame and guilt free" - why? Bit of a political thing eh? And since it was God's plan in the first place, the Jews were only following "orders", so should not get the blame for anything anyway - yet they do? (And continuing this logic - it was all God's plan for Adam and Eve to eat the fruit so God could justify coming down in 4,000 years time and get nailed to a cross to prove what a loving God he is? - WOW, when you think about it, it all makes sense?)

I hate my way of thinking, the more I think about the bible, and the worst it gets for me... I do not even think that hard about it, honestly, questions just keep "popping up".

I'm sure if I just thought a little more on the subject, I could think of more "strangeness" with God's logic – the bible just doesn't make sense. Do you think this was the reason it was suppressed for so long in the middle ages – the church would kill you if you had a copy in your own language, I mean, you might read it or something and start asking question or thinking for yourself. Of course, doesn't happen today – the church never wants to suppress information now (Erm – the teaching of evolution and science in schools? Surely this isn't suppression?)

It seems to happen whenever I read a chapter in the bible… is it just me?

Anyway - I will stop now, another bloody rant from me - we were looking for evidence from the bible, not if the bible makes sense – who are we to know the mind of God eh?

Should go to prove just a little bit though, that I can read the bible thinking that God exists... but it makes more sense if God didn't exist - at least you could just blame the ignorance of a tribe of men living in the desert 2 to 4 thousand years ago. If God actually wrote the bible, He has a lot to explain...

I'll calm down now and have a nice hot cup of tea …

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1276. Comment #64437 by Quetzalcoatl on August 20, 2007 at 4:57 am

Lee-

By the same principle, you've got to feel bloody sorry for Judas, poor guy. He played a fairly pivotal role, after all. Without his "betrayal", Jesus would never have been crucified, which would have made rising from the grave after three days to be something of a problem.

"Look, Jesus isn't in his grave!"
"Er, no, he's over there eating some bread and scratching his head".
"Miraculous".

Anyway. Judas is pretty much predestined to betray Jesus. God has planned it that way, to the extent that Judas had no choice. According to the Bible, Jesus told Judas that he would be the one who gave him up to the Romans, so Jesus knew. Essentially, this gave Judas his "blessing". And yet, for doing this, Judas is reviled, and burning in hell, when all he did was fulfil his role in God's Plan. This hardly seems fair.

Some Christians say Judas had a choice, and because he chose to betray Jesus, that's why he's condemned. To which my response is "Huh?" Without Judas, Jesus could never have died for our sins? It's unlikely that God had a back-up plan.

"What do you mean, Judas didn't betray him? Damn free will. Should never have given it to him. Ah well, activate Plan B. Peter will now betray Jesus in return for a luxury sea-front property on the Mediterranean coast".

I don't think so.

So that makes Judas the most unfairly-treated man in the Bible. It's a tremendous contradiction.

Perhaps I need some tea. Lee, I Command that your tea will be good.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1277. Comment #64469 by J.C. Samuelson on August 20, 2007 at 6:54 am

Lee,

Sorry for the delay!

So using the bible as evidence for God is fine with me. How worthwhile this is, being "science trained", depends on how well the bible stands up to the "test".

That's almost precisely my thinking when I first decided to look into my previously held faith. At the time, it seemed that the best way to "prove" the Bible was to subject it to intense scrutiny, thereby settling the question (in my mind at least, or so I believed) as to whether it could be considered a divine document and indirect evidence of the god that's alleged to be its author.

Needless to say, it doesn't hold up as well as Christians imagine, as you went on to point out.

Has anyone read, other than the bible, of earthquakes and dead saints raising at the time of the "so called" resurrection? (in Matthew 27: 51-54) Surely someone would have noticed this and wrote it down – I questioned this in "another" thread if anyone is interested, its a long one and no answers are given of course from the theist

Actually, there is a source that's often quoted as an extra-biblical reference to the earthquake and eclipse (darkness) that supposedly accompanied the resurrection. The quote comes to us second-hand through George Syncellus citing Sextus Julius Africanus, referring to Thallus. The quote is thus:

"This event followed each of his deeds, and healings of body and soul, and knowledge of hidden things, and his resurrection from the dead, all sufficiently proven to the disciples before us and to his apostles: after the most dreadful darkness fell over the whole world, the rocks were torn apart by an earthquake and much of Judaea and the rest of the land was torn down. Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun in the third book of his Histories, without reason it seems to me. For....how are we to believe that an eclipse happened when the moon was diametrically opposite the sun? In fact, let it be so. Let the idea that this happened seize and carry away the multitude, and let the cosmic prodigy be counted as an eclipse of the sun according to its appearance. Phlegon reports that in the time of Tiberius Caesar, during the full moon, a full eclipse of the sun happened, from the sixth hour until the ninth. Clearly this is our eclipse! What is common about an earthquake, an eclipse, rocks torn apart, a rising of the dead, and such a huge cosmic movement? At the very least, over a long period, no conjunction this great is remembered. But it was a godsent darkness, because the Lord happened to suffer, and the Bible, in Daniel, supports that seventy spans of seven years would come together up to this time." (or a slightly different translation - more modern - is available here)

A brief analysis of this can be found here, with a more extensive version here. It's also been discussed elsewhere in books and other articles, many apologetic in character. There are, needless to say, issues with the passage in question, but I won't repeat them here since Richard Carrier already did a much better job than I could.

Ash (the theist) could not see or understand the comparison. (Maybe just my poor argument skills at work again?)

This happens quite frequently, in my experience. There's a pretty significant disconnect between the way people think on opposite sides of the fence. The reason for it is, I'm sure, deeply rooted in the psychology of belief. This is one reason why I'm fairly cynical about the discussion of evidence having any meaningful impact on faith. With respect to our friend Mark, I enjoy engaging with him. He's taken pains to be better informed, and he presents himself as having far more class than most of the American amateur apologists I've met online. Nonetheless, I don't think there will be any paradigm shifts happening as a result.

Good to see you BTW - you look so much younger now.

Thanks! Must be the collagen or the botox. ;)

I am too ashamed to show my real face.

That's not your real face? ;)

Gotta get to work now.

Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson

1278. Comment #64610 by LeeC on August 21, 2007 at 2:20 am

JC

That's not your real face?

It's a fake beard... I'm trying to be in disguise, but the lighting is showing my best side.

I did think about wearing glasses and a fake nose, but it wouldn't go with the helmet.

Q

I Command that your tea will be good

WOW... thank you for your blessing - your power is truly amazing.

When I had my cuppa last night, I was sure it was not that great, but now after your blessing I remember for sure it being the best cup of tea I ever had.
Not too milky, not too strong, and just the right amount of sugar.

All praise Quetzalcoatl.

How you do it, I'll never know…

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1279. Comment #64612 by LeeC on August 21, 2007 at 2:23 am

Hi Q,

By the same principle, you've got to feel bloody sorry for Judas, poor guy

I forgot about him during my rant... I agree - poor chap.

Although without him and the vilification that followed, would we have ever had the greatest band in the world - Judas Priest?
I doubt it; "Judas -the rather nice chap who did as he was told in order Jesus could be killed for all our sins - Priest" - Just would not had cut it for me. It would never fit on the album cover either.

I think the bible is just like any other crappy Hollywood movie (Holy? – it is close) - you need a bad guy to make the good guy, well, look good. You also think that the hero has died towards the end, but NO... wait, by some miracle - the hero is back. Hooray...

And all that stuff with revelations is just the author looking for a sequel... the last 10 mins of the movie showing you what will be in the next movie should they get the money - it should make a good movie, but I doubt I would understand any of it. (Just like the Pirates of the Caribbean)

And this "free-will" thing has always got me confused. We have free-will to do what God knows we will do. So it is predetermined and not free will at all. If we did something that God didn't already know about then God would not "know" the future. So either God is not actually as great as the Christians want us to believe, or we do not have free-will. Take your pick I think.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1280. Comment #64613 by BillySands on August 21, 2007 at 2:34 am

Hi Lee,
Concerning Judas, the Gospel of Judas gives a different side to that story. He planned it with Jesus. If you look at the so called prophecies concerning Judas, they are not prophecies at all (more later if you wish).

Then we have this little beauty: (Matt 19:28)

"And Jesus said to them (the disciples), "Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones , judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
Apparently including Judas.

Saw some guys from Judas Priest support Iron Maiden a few years ago. It was strange watching them head bang without hair

Other Comments by BillySands

1281. Comment #64614 by LeeC on August 21, 2007 at 2:39 am

Hi JC,

Actually, there is a source that's often quoted as an extra-biblical reference to the earthquake and eclipse (darkness) that supposedly accompanied the resurrection. The quote comes to us second-hand through George Syncellus citing Sextus Julius Africanus, referring to Thallus.

Thanks for quote and links - it highlights one major point for me at least - I need to be tighter on my definition.

My statement "other than the bible" should also include "and other Christian literature." since of course a lot of Christian writing did not make it into the bible - if it is written by a believer, then their "opinion" will be "one-sided". (It may also been the source for later Christian writing that became a Gospel - so it proves nothing. It could also have been written after the bible and so would be worthless as evidence for the bible)

The source quoted for me then is still a Christian source (and second- or third-hand at that).

This does not mean or prove that it is wrong, just I want to "hear it" from a non-believer, from someone who is not promoting the Christian god.

If the event truly happened, then why wouldn't some Roman or Greek "claim" (falsely, if you are a Christian) that it was "their god" that did the deed? These "false prophets and preachers" would not miss a trick like that would they? - So we should have written evidence "outside the bible" (which I take to be a non-Christian source).

It should also be possible for non-religious writing to describe the event - plenty of opportunity for evidence then for the bible stories - yet I've still not seen any. This means if events did occur at around the time of the supposed crucifixion, no one other than the Christians thought the events (earthquake, eclipse (darkness for 3 hours over the whole earth?) – dead walking) were of any importance and not that "unusual".

A lot of Jews where around at the time, but they "kept their faith" – why is that? I mean, the bible is pretty clear, if you were living at the time, you must have been blind not to notice it. I would certainly start to question my beliefs if I saw what was described.

OK… must go.

Lee
PS
(I've just read the references/links BTW – thanks again - and it makes for interesting reading – I will post a longer reply later, I'll enjoy it – I may bore you all to death though, but hey, read it for your bedtime reading)

PPS Does Passover always happen at full moon? Rather important with regards to the solar eclipse/darkness question.

Other Comments by LeeC

1282. Comment #64615 by LeeC on August 21, 2007 at 2:47 am

Saw some guys from Judas Priest support Iron Maiden a few years ago. It was strange watching them head bang without hair

It's the beerguts in t-shirts that make me laugh (and that's just me looking in the mirror)

I wonder... do you mean Halford?

I saw Maiden in Manchester on the Brave New world tour a few years back also and a band calling themselves Halford (named after the Judas Priest singer Rob Halford) was support.

It was the balding dwarf with the beergut singing the last song that did it for me... worth every penny.

Shame Maiden were boring... songs too long (or I'm too old)

Must really go now...

Thanks

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1283. Comment #64630 by Philip1978 on August 21, 2007 at 4:02 am

Lee,

I know exactly what you are talking about, I too want a non-christian to pop up somewhere from that part of history and say "Yes, this Jesus chap was walking on the water the other day plus he raised that other chap from the dead, jolly nice of him, I say, has breakfast tea been invented yet?" (Sorry, my Hebrew is a little rusty these days so I gave my character and English voice! hehehe)

So far my investigations have brought up nothing to make me thing that there is any truth in the story, though I still have a lot to wade through. All the sources I have read so far have all been doctored or so completely vague that I still cannot find a historical document.

Further more since I don't have a religious bone in my body, like you, the moment I start reading anything in the Bible, automatically questions pop up despite my efforts to let the Jesus or God character exist or do the things they do. I start asking stuff from the ridiculous to the confused. Did Jesus really have smelly feet that he needed so much expensive oil to wash them in? Where did Cain's wife come from? Why did Jesus send a herd of pigs off on a marathon to go and jump of a cliff? Why must I go kill people who tell me there are other Gods? None of it makes any sense to me apart from looking at it as a guide book to how they thought around 2000 or so years ago. Like the Iliad, it makes more sense to me to enjoy it as a story and not believe it.

More TEA, I needs it, I wants it, the precious TEA!
Philip

I saw Maiden last year, they were amazing!

Other Comments by Philip1978

1284. Comment #64831 by LeeC on August 22, 2007 at 2:40 am

Hi Philip,

I too want a non-christian to pop up somewhere from that part of history and say "Yes, this Jesus chap was walking on the water the other day plus he raised that other chap from the dead, jolly nice of him, I say, has breakfast tea been invented yet?" (Sorry, my Hebrew is a little rusty these days so I gave my character and English voice! hehehe)

You would not have thought we are asking too much would you?

There should have been loads of writings knocking around (3 or 4 good examples would be enough for me I think) not just talking about the Jesus chap himself, but also about the many "great" events described in the bible. Many of these would have been "global" events, and some certainly seen by many thousands in and around the cities in question – many of which would have been non-believers - you would have thought some of these witnesses spoke to non-Christians writers during their trading travels who then wrote it down - e.g. The Greek writes "What a strange tale I heard from the Jewish sailor - I did not know Apollo would do such a thing, but he does work in mysterious ways at times, turning the skies to darkness for 3 hours is strange indeed, but all those dead people walking around – gives one the willies Old Boy". (I cannot do Greek either - so I too translate with an English accent, its catching)

It would not be conclusive evidence, but it would add weight to the Christian argument if such documents existed supporting their "biblical" claims. The problem is whenever the Christian gets hold a "little evidence" (maybe an earthquake reference in a near-by city 500 miles away) they have to "alter it" to say more than it really did.

The "global" events/claims cause even more problems for the bible, as I said, such events would be seen by many people, all "untouched" by Christians beliefs and propaganda, for many hundreds of years, events such as the "Star of Bethlehem", "Darkness over the whole earth", the moon moving from one side of the Earth to the other (The result of a full moon one night, then solar eclipse the next day (assuming Passover is always at a full moon, and the "darkness covering the sun" was indeed a solar eclipse). Any such cultural writings and observations would be great evidence for the bible story, since these people had no idea what was going on thousands of miles away. The absence of such writing is telling…

This raises another question (why does this always happen to me?) - If God is so great, why was His message only to a little tribe in the desert and it took hundreds of years to spread around the world (still incomplete)?
Shouldn't the WHOLE world know the message of Jesus - at the time of the events? Not waiting, for some, 1400 years for some Spanish Christians to come along to tribes in South America and say "Be Christian, it's a loving faith, with a loving God... No? OK - I will kill you in the name of the all loving God - God be praised!"

If the story of God is true, then God allowed these people in South America and Australia to live in ignorance without His "love" and "guidance" - and if you believe "some" interpretations of the NT - to burn in hell for all eternity for not living a good Christian life. (Not Mark's, not sure what he thinks happens to such people.)

Of course, there is an easier answer to all this - that religion is man-made and can only be spread by "word of mouth". (Memes if you go for what Richard Dawkins and Dan Dennett write about – not sure myself).

These distant cultures could not be "infected" (sorry "blessed") by a religion until they have come into contact with its follows (Christians in this case)... this makes sense to me – and this theory matches the observations in the real world.

If god truly existed, when the Spanish Christians got to South American in 1492, they should have been greeted by loving Christians staying "Oh yeah, we know Jesus... he "popped" over here in 29AD... nice chap, long blond(?) hair and a beard. Look here, it is written in this book we call "THE BIBLE" would you like to taste the blood and body of Christ by using this bread and wine with just a few magic words? (Erm... didn't the Mormons try and write something like this in the 1800's? Maybe Joseph Smith was trying to make sense of the problem I raised... 400 years too late. That's religion for you)

Further more since I don't have a religious bone in my body, like you, the moment I start reading anything in the Bible, automatically questions pop up despite my efforts to let the Jesus or God character exist or do the things they do.

Phew… not just me then?

For the "research" I did before responding to JC, I tried to find a reference in the bible that stated that the Passover happened on a full moon. (From secondary sources, I think this is actually the case but I still do not know for sure)

Anyway – I did a quick search for "moon" on the bible gateway to "find the answer".

Only found more questions… what a surprise?

I think I now know the problem; I (like you and the rest of the atheists here) try and answer what I read in the bible logically, with "common sense" and using known physics (science, biology whatever your cup of tea.), without making any assumptions about the text (such as "god did it" so stop thinking).

If an event breaks my knowledge of physics (this is not a problem, it is called a miracle – God can do that I am told) then I merely require evidence (from sources other than the bible and Christian writers) to back-up the claim that the event actually occurred as described. If a claim is not backed-up, then I will question, logically, why?

I think this may be the difference between me and a theist.

Just a thought…

Lee

PS
I may post a break down of my issues with some of these new verses I found, if it is of any interest to anyone, however I am writing enough at the moment. (It is getting worse than the Harry Potter books – they started as a pamphlet sized book, then grew to be of "biblical" proportions – and make as much sense to me.)

For the reader, to spot any issues, the verses are (in the King James):-
Joshua 10:13
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

Isaiah 30:26
Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in the day that the LORD bindeth up the breach of his people, and healeth the stroke of their wound.

PPS

I saw Maiden last year, they were amazing!

Is there a pattern forming?

Heavy Metal <-> Iron Maiden <-> Atheist!!!

I blame Eddie.

Either that or the long hair blocks all those "God rays" or something.

Other Comments by LeeC

1285. Comment #64834 by LeeC on August 22, 2007 at 2:55 am

Hi JC,

I've been reading the references/links you gave me by Richard Carrier.

I thought I would add something… but it turns out it will not be much, merely repeating some ideas of Richard Carrier.

My main point I have already said, the quote is actually a Christian one, it may refer to a "pagan" Thallus - but this reference only speaks of a solar eclipse, which the Christian writer himself dismisses. (As the writer correctly says, if a full moon occurred at Passover, you could not get a solar eclipse the next day (without a miracle that would be spotted by and assumingly written by others observers around the world))

It seems "clear" then, from reading this quote and the references, that certain events "probably" happened around the time of the supposed crucifixion. So I have learnt something – in hindsight, I should not have been surprised. It saves on imagination for the writer to base his story a little on "truth", and make the story more "believable".

An earthquake may have happened at around the same time, but 500 miles away.
A solar eclipse may have happened at around the same time (Nov 29AD? According to Richard Carrier – when is Passover again?) Maybe it was near by, but certainly not the day after a full moon (and if Passover takes place on a full-moon, it breaks this possibility.)

Now all the biblical writer needs to do is to "beef it up" a little, make the events happen at the same time, in the required location… and BINGO – we have a start of bible story.

It needs just a few more touches though… Earthquakes and solar eclipses happen "all the time" – not good enough…

Oh course – the "impossible" and "unwitnessed" events are required - the dead walking, the darkness lasting 3 hours (all over the earth?) – A solar eclipse happening the day after a full moon… and now we have a REAL bible story.

Best of all, some people will "remember it" as well; Not all of it of course (since not all of it actually happened, and the events that did take place were at different times and locations), but it will all add positive reinforcement on a distant memory. It will start to "sound" real to the unquestioning and "believing" mind. This means when "researchers" come looking 20, 30, 40 or 100 years later people will either "remember" the story clearly themselves, or the story their grandfather passed down to them. (This is another problem with the oral tradition of story telling.)

I wonder if the writers of the bible were alive today they would be writing for "The Sun" or "Sunday Sport"… "Lancaster Bomber found on moon" is still a classic for me. (Sorry JC – this last bit probably made no sense at all – only to the Brits, maybe)

"Never let the facts get in the way of a good story" eh?

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1286. Comment #64847 by Philip1978 on August 22, 2007 at 4:20 am

Lee

I think I can just imagine it, here is my take on it, this has just been made up on the spot but here goes

It is well known that certain alcoholic drinks, when poured into the wrong type of metal container, have a chemical reaction which renders the drinker in a dead-like manner. It happened in medieval times so it could have happened in the early days of AD! So, the eclipse happens in the middle of someone being crucified and everybody is going mad cos they don't know what it is. Lets say the chap getting crucified was a popular chap and his mates had gone off just before the eclipse to have a drink in his name and end up drinking the wrong alcoholic drink in the wrong cup. When it finally arrives and they happen to wake up feeling pretty dreadful and start than long walk home (you know how it is after a few jars!) People who see them stumbling along think its the dead risen from the grave at a time when its dark etc.

Some guy, lets call him Matthew, hears about this and thinks, cor, thats a great yarn, could do with a bit of spice...

Hows that?

Philip

Heavy Metal music causes most who listen to it to "Mosh" thus shaking off any God rays that are bombarding them!

Other Comments by Philip1978

1287. Comment #64851 by LeeC on August 22, 2007 at 4:49 am

Hi Philip,

This all makes sense... so it was a different crucifixion probably in Nov 29AD to fit in with the solar eclipse in the area… a bad drink in the wrong cup – "dead men walking"… all makes sense to me.

Matthew comes along – hears about an eclipse and dead men walking – turn these drunks into saints (why not, who wants to hear about drunks?)
Hears of an earthquake 500 miles away – move this to Jerusalem, put it all together – lengthen the 3 minute eclipse to 3 hours - it must be Jesus right?

Nobody will ask how an eclipse happened the day after a full moon? Or why no one in Jerusalem felt an earthquake or saw any saints walking around… if they do – we will just stone them to death as a warning for being non-believers.

So what a story this makes… this could be the "The Greatest Story Ever Told" – could make a movie out of it… what should we call it?

Lee

PS
I am interested about your statement that such drink cocktail happened in medieval times… any references or period?

Other Comments by LeeC

1288. Comment #64856 by fairytalegod on August 22, 2007 at 5:12 am

"Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3)

Who's lying here? Paul or all the other Christians? And if Jesus isn't really of the seed of David, does this not show that Jesus was a false messiah?

Other Comments by fairytalegod

1289. Comment #65154 by LeeC on August 23, 2007 at 3:21 am

Hi fairytalegod,

Others on this thread know the bible better than I and so the "seed of David" (Romans 1:3) may mean more to them, but for people like me, could you explain what this actually means to your argument?

As you may know, Mark (the only theist currently on this thread) is on holiday at the moment - preaching the word of God to Israel to stir up the 2nd coming of Christ or something like that, although Mark "claims" (if you believe this) that he will be just "sightseeing"... (Only joking Mark)

Anyway, let's see if I can cause more trouble while Mark is away...

All in the name of Quetzalcoatl!!! All praise Quetzalcoatl...

Who's lying here? Paul or all the other Christians? And if Jesus isn't really of the seed of David, does this not show that Jesus was a false messiah?

Both... No, None... erm... Paul? Me? I know... the French.
(Quetzalcoatl can you please curse the French a little more?)

Anyway, if the quote means "seed" as in "son of" or "descendant of" - then the bible may have walked into a typical problem it seems to do - A "Son of God" should not also be the "Son of David (line)" - unless this could come through the mother's line(?), but I doubt that - Half Mary/Half God does not seem to be what the bible claims - I think Jesus is supposed to be 100% God - pure and all that. No mixing of dirty woman genes... (Or man's dirty genes for that matter)

Although, I am sure it will not be the first time the bible "claims" more than one thing that to anyone else would seem impossible. "Son of David", "Son of God", "Son of Man"... if anything, it proves we should be careful of the bible... it could be used to mean anything you want. It certainly tries it best to "prove" a lot of the old prophecies of the OT point to Jesus. (Bethlehem, Virgin Birth and all that - but lets not go there)

Anyway, "Issues" like you raised are sometimes "washed away" under the mistranslation "clause" in the bible mythology. (And sometimes reading a verse out of context - I do that all the time Mark tells me)

Anyway, let tackle the "easy one" - translation...

Romans 1:3
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
(King James Version)

Concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh
English Standard Version (ESV)

regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David,
(New International Version)

Don't you just love what people can do with words?

You would have thought they were reading different sources sometimes? (Although, they seem to mean the same) I still wonder though why God doesn't come down and write a "new" version of the bible in Modern English, French, German, Chinese etc etc so we do not have any "mistranslations" and "misunderstandings". It does seem odd that we are expected to follow "hearsay", "rumour" and "bias" accounts from 2,000 years ago as the word of god as the means for our salvation? On that matter, why don't we all speak the same language? (Of course, the tower of Babel - God was scared the tower was getting to close to heaven or something - so long time ago changed all our language. This does not explain why are language still "needs" to evolve. The bible just seems to be making up a story to explain an event today we can "understand" with "science". Nothing-new then?)

Anyway, back to your argument, I would like to learn more.... Where does it say Jesus should be "the seed of David"? Who "seed" was Jesus from?

If Jesus was the "Son Of God" - how could Jesus also be said to be a "descendant"/"seed" of anyone?
This "flesh" talk and "descendant of David" just seems weird to me - does the bible want Jesus to be a man descended from David, or a "Son of God" - they should make their mind up. On one hand Jesus should have been "unique" - 100% pure breed God-child-thingy, then next Jesus has a complete family tree back to David? All rather "human"

A man - not a god? God - not a man? Is there a middle ground?

I think you are right - it does create more questions than answers... although I am sure a good theist will have one.

Thanks, another verse to add to my "questionable" list.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1290. Comment #65158 by BillySands on August 23, 2007 at 3:41 am

Concerning the decendant of David business. This is of course not possible because Joseph was apparently not his father. The genealogies of Matt 1 and Luke 3 strongly disagree with each other. Some try to claim that Lukes is the genealogy of Mary - read it and dream on! A major problem is that we have Paul saying that he is the decendant of David, but luke has the wrong son of David. The messianic line is to come through Solomon, not Nathan (2 Sam. 7:12, 1 Chron. 22:9-10).

Other Comments by BillySands

1291. Comment #65165 by LeeC on August 23, 2007 at 4:41 am

Thanks Billy,

You're not suggesting that bible writers made a mistake?

I don't want to put words in your mouth or anything – but it seems that you are?

Thanks for the references…

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1292. Comment #65169 by BillySands on August 23, 2007 at 4:48 am

You're not suggesting that bible writers made a mistake?

Certainly not. A mistake would require that they were initially intending to convey the truth. An investigation of Messianic prophecy will show you that they were not.

Other Comments by BillySands

1293. Comment #65171 by LeeC on August 23, 2007 at 4:56 am

Sorry Billy, my mistake...

So they did it on purpose!!! Why would they do that?

No need to answer… I think I can guess.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1294. Comment #65188 by J.C. Samuelson on August 23, 2007 at 5:44 am

Lee,

I wonder if the writers of the bible were alive today they would be writing for "The Sun" or "Sunday Sport"… "Lancaster Bomber found on moon" is still a classic for me. (Sorry JC – this last bit probably made no sense at all – only to the Brits, maybe)

I suspect they would, or could if they wanted to. They definitely had the requisite imagination. And I'm familiar with the Lancaster story. :) You might find this entertaining.

Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson

1295. Comment #65191 by LeeC on August 23, 2007 at 5:54 am

Thanks JC

So the quality English Newspapers make it all the way to America - excellent

Must go now...

Lee

PS
I did like the photograph as evidence… I believe it now.

The youth of today!!

Other Comments by LeeC

1296. Comment #65389 by Philip1978 on August 24, 2007 at 2:21 am

Quetz,

I have just had word from my girlfriend that she was feeling bad this morning with headache etc She then had a cup of Tea and it was good Tea for it made her better. I have to thank You for Your kindness oh Mighty Quetz, I will see if I can convert her now that she has witnessed the wonders of truly great Tea that You did send unto her!

Cheeeers!

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

1297. Comment #65392 by Quetzalcoatl